3 ms·
Ok, let’s get into licensing. Copyleft licenses like AGPL and SSPL have a weaker result in terms of overall benefit to society than liberal licenses like MIT an
by stcredzero 8y ago
Ok, let’s get into licensing. Copyleft licenses like AGPL and SSPL have a weaker result in terms of overall benefit to society than liberal licenses like MIT and Apache2. You can take two interpretations on copyleft, which I’ll call “the crusader” or “the capitalist”.
The problem with the "crusader" model, as practiced, is that it came with a "you're either with us, or you're against us" stance. This created a community subculture which encouraged the alienation of potential allies and served more to make the Free Software movement more of a hipster pose. It served more to make Free Software a kind of antipodean "unwalled" garden, where the barriers to entry also acted as a validation of the virtue signal.
Don't get me wrong. Copyleft licenses have a place. It's just that the place is not "Uber alles."
- Proven 8y agoPersonally I make an effort to not contribute to any freedom-limiting software (GPL 2.0 is already bad enough, but GPL 3 is way worse). I explicitly check for GPL 3 and make sure I don't help in any way. The alienation created by the crusader model is deliberate. It's meant to control and change, not to live and let live.